Slashdot Mirror

How about someone create a game that occurs today when the ignorant Christians killed thousands of people who wouldn't convert to their religion?

the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale

I've been to Hiroshima: You're full of shit.

look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started.

Documented body count of civilians: Around a hundred thousand.

But you, you only count enlisted US military personnel. You don't even count the contractors... you disgust me.

Oh come on... We've done a lot better than that lately.

As far as your cute line about war = terrorism, did you miss the memo regarding it being illegal to kill noncombatants in modern day wars?

I wish the US had heard about that:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

or called or regime change in Iraq.

There is a big difference between calling for regime change and invading a nation, causing the documented deaths of over 100,000 civilians

I have great respect for America's determination to protect freedom and free speech. That word means a lot to you, as it does to me.

But wait, before you call it a Tiananmen square "massacre" - do you consider that ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND people are now dead in Iraq. Last week, a drone killed 140 people in Afganistan, mostly innocents.

So, as opposed to thousands of their own people killed by the Chinese, you went to another country and killed much much more.

I am not saying it is worse; just saying that taking a stance on moral issues is difficult. And often becomes very subjective.

Ok, so he hung 200 people publicly a year. From 1991 to 2003 is 12 years so 2400 people.
Then add a conservative 5000 (Probably closer to 10000 since many of the injured died of complicationis) from the Halabja poison gas attack and we're just getting started. That was just one part of the Al-Anfal Campaign where he killed roughly 100,000. That's just violence against the Kurds which is the most well documented. And the hangings don't account for the shootings and killings post Gulf War when he quelled the Shiite Rebellion. Body count puts the Iraq war collateral damage total at about 100,000. So in fact we haven't killed as many Iraqis as Saddam.

Motivations for war aside, the operation has been exceedingly poorly executed, and may be inexcusable. But lets not delude ourselves into thinking "Well, Saddam wasn't that bad". He was worse.

You're right. China has very different standard in testing on humans. They also have a very different view of the value of life. Look back through their history and see how they respond to disaster or even war. They consider their billion countrymen to be dispensible at times.

Yeah, guess we've never seen a lack of caring about human life in the United States before. Guess we value people if their skin isn't too dark and they're not too different ...

What IS the exact count for each? In terms of sheer body count, there's a pretty fair chance that the US/UK coalition killed more Iraquis than Saddam did during his entire reign. Of course, the coalition killed them in order to liberate them, so that's OK.

Okay, either you're regurgitating anti-American propaganda or, more likely, haven't paid much mind to history since the late 1970s.

Let's take a look.

Saddam Hussein: ~2 million.
Since the invasion: almost 100,000.

Now, to be fair, Saddam ruled for approximately 24 years, and his numbers include deaths that were not necessarily civilian casualities. That gives him a death tally of about 80,000 deaths per year versus around 17,000 per year under coalition forces. However, it is exceedingly important to remember that many of the deaths recorded in Iraq, particularly recently, have been the result of suicide bombings, executions, and other acts of violence not tied to the coalition. If you have an unbiased source that supports your view, I'd certainly be happy to hear it.

Yes, the deaths per year is still unnecessarily high, but to make the statement that MORE deaths have occurred because US/UK forces have actively killed civilians is an outright lie. On the other hand, yours could be a two-liner troll!

Collation Casualties http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx
Iraqi Casualties http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
Overview: 4,261 US Dead, 91,337-99,721 Iraqi dead. Those in the army knew the risks and took them for their country when they joined the army knowing they could be sent to war, Iraqi civilians were stuck in the middle of it.
Now shut the fuck up bitch.

Are you talking about our (US) casualties or the deaths of A-Stan/Iraqi people? You can get those pretty much any time you want. Hers a few I found with a quick Google searhc: http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

No offense, but stuff it. The US does not set out to kill as many people as possible.

I certainly hope not. But unfortunately what one "set out to do" isn't what counts. What counts is what actually happens, especially when it was a forseeable result of one's actions. "I didn't mean to" is okay for children, but not so good for adults.

91,060 - 99,433 is the complete total for civilian deaths in Iraq.

No, actually it's the number of documented deaths. That is, it's actually only a lower bound. The true number is certainly higher. No one knows how much higher. It would seem that there has been a studied effort by the governments involved not to determine the true number of men, women, and children killed.

But having a hundred thousand people die due to being killed by their own people (#1 cause) and accidental deaths during live fire

If these people would still have been alive had the US not acted, the US bears a responsibility. It might be true that this was the best of the available alternatives, but this case has not been seriously made at this point. "It's not our fault" is a pretty pathetic substitute.

No offense, but stuff it. The US does not set out to kill as many people as possible. If we did, we would have nuked Bagdad and left. But we didn't. We put our men and women on the line to die for the war. Now people here and in other countries can argue whether that was the correct decision or not. But we do NOT set out to slaughter people en masse.

And for the record, your figures are complete bunk. 91,060 - 99,433 is the complete total for civilian deaths in Iraq. If you want to blame the US for each and every one of those deaths, that is your prerogative. But having a hundred thousand people die due to being killed by their own people (#1 cause) and accidental deaths during live fire are a LONG way from heartlessly killing millions of people.

What about the part where he promised to help stabilize Iraq?

Maybe you aren't aware of the level of violence still taking place in Iraq. Let me enlighten you. Bush had not come close to stabilizing Iraq by the time he left office. In fact, he has reduced the violence only to about its 2004 level. That's not exactly helping, since he caused this lawlessness and anarchy in the first place.

What about where he promised we'd see no new terrorist attacks on American soil?

I'd argue that he deserves as much credit for preventing another attack as he deserves blame for allowing the first one. That is to say, none. There is zero evidence that any of his policies have helped make America safer, and while you may laud the fact that there hasn't been an attack on American soil, there have been many terrorist attacks against Americans and American allies over the past 7 years, which he failed to prevent.

What about the part where he promised to help stabilize Iraq?

Maybe you aren't aware of the level of violence still taking place in Iraq. Let me enlighten you. Bush had not come close to stabilizing Iraq by the time he left office. In fact, he has reduced the violence only to about its 2004 level. That's not exactly helping, since he caused this lawlessness and anarchy in the first place.

What about where he promised we'd see no new terrorist attacks on American soil?

I'd argue that he deserves as much credit for preventing another attack as he deserves blame for allowing the first one. That is to say, none. There is zero evidence that any of his policies have helped make America safer, and while you may laud the fact that there hasn't been an attack on American soil, there have been many terrorist attacks against Americans and American allies over the past 7 years, which he failed to prevent.

A little aghast as to the fact that you got an insightful mod for this.

This scares me a little. I mean, we should sue the gun makers because guns kill people. We should sue the ore miners because they produce the steel that is used in the guns.

Yes, I agree 100%

But

If the French have such a problem with P2P why don't they just block it at the ISP level? Why go after the FOSS developers who just write a program? Because you can't possibly blame the citizens who breach copyright.

How do you get to equate "French Record Companies" with "the French"? For the next story about RIAA shenanigans, are we all supposed to come troll about "the Americans" being nuts.

This is coming from a country that were happy to set off nukes in the pacific because they didn't what to bow to international pressure. Pricks.

Yes? Nuclear tests bring me no joy either, but do we get get to rant about Hiroshima on RIAA threads??? wtf? or considering your barb about international pressure, are you trying to tell us that almost 100000 civilian deaths are somehow connected to the RIAA, or even most of "the Americans"???

I took a look at at the statistics from Iraq Body Count and these seem to corroborate. Note however that the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count states that "Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site. ".

I haven't actually been following the whole situation lately, most of my knowledge stems from mid 2007, but there are still some critical voices. For example, take a look at this documentary by a Iraqi journalist with the Guardian from March who investigated U.S. claims concerning the success of the surge. In the beginning of the video concerning Baghdad he states: "It has been transformed into a city of walls.".

Note the following footage from before the invasion in 2003.

That might give you some more insight into the some of the reasons behind the statistics. There are a couple of more videos that I know of. Though note it was a while ago that I saw these, but I believe the information it offers is still quite important.

Such as the following short news report from March 2007, a quote:

"Here in Anbar province America cannot defeat Al-Qaeda with the troops it has, so it's turned to the tribes. Baathists and nationalist insurgents of the Salvation Council. Virtually contracting out parts of the battle against Al-Qaeda to tribal fighters. The deal is simple America gives local leaders free reign as long as they root out and kill Al-Qaeda."

Another (more lengthy report) aired on the September 2007 edition of People & Power, a news program by Al Jazeera English. It's made available through YouTube, Part I and Part II..

Here's a transcript from one of the interviews with some sort of local leader:

Q: Which tribes signed the agreement today?
A: The Tamimi, Zobai, Al Obeidi, Al Jumeilli, Fallahi.

Q: How many of the tribes were once involved in fighting the Americans?
A: Your time is up. It's $100 for an extra minute.

And the introduction from Part II:

"In defending its Iraq strategy the Bush administration increasingly points to success in turning Sunni tribes that fought an insurgency against them into allies in combating Al-Qaeda. Embedded with the U.S. military filmmakers Rick Rowley and David Enders witnessed the strategy and practice at first hand. They discovered that Shiite populations are paying the price for the peace that now reigns in areas where the Sunni insurgency once raged. And that sectarian hatred can still easily erupt as they found out after rushing to the scene of a car bombing with the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment."

Note that the sheik interviewed in the video (but not the one I transcripted above) and apparently portrayed by the U.S. as a key figure in controlling the tribes was assassinated shortly after arriving in Iraq.

Also I'm not sure if Angelina Jolie was amazed, her article in the Washington Post uses words such as "positive" and "hopeful". Amazed might be too strong of a word in this case.

I'm interested in your comments.

Yeah, but the West left most of their worst religious-nutball-inspired-violence behind hundreds of years ago.

Oh really?

"When, I ask, are the very people that are extraditing him going to pay for their crimes against humanity? huh? Invade foreign countries and murder millions of people then get all defensive and hurt if someone manages to log in to an unsecured account."

I suggest you learn to count before you try to judge people.
murder millions?
Interesting math to say the least.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
And that is from both sides.

Yeah well despite the sibling post's comments about murder, Mike's actions will not likely cause the election of a lunatic and the deaths of almost a hundred thousand innocent people either, so I'm guessing he will sleep quite a bit more soundly than Nader should. That is not to say Nader was in the wrong either, though. Sometimes the world just needs an antihero.

Anyhow, you can see Mike's reasons for full disclosure on his blog.

"The Bush docterine has in fact, been highly successful. We have not been attacked at home again since 911. There is no getting around that fact. "

In the 9/11 attacks 2,998 people died and over 6,000 were injured. The world responded with a huge outpouring of support and quickly became allies in ousting the Taliban. In the Iraq war, there have been 4,102 American military deaths, and another 313 military deaths from other countries. 29,978 Americans have been injured by tally from iCasualties. Over 900 contractors have been killed and 12,000 wounded by May 2007. Iraq Body Count, which probably has the most stringent standards (ie certainly will under-report) in reporting Iraqi deaths has an estimated 85,060 to 92,787 fatalities. The in/famous Lancet studies estimated 654,965 Iraqi fatalities through the end of June 2006. In addition to the carnage, we've got a military in a shambles that will take a decade or more and hundreds of billions of dollars to refit and rebuild. Our deficit has swelled. Our economy is staggering around punch-drunk. We've pissed off the world in a way that has never been done before. We've taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and the Taliban are regaining strength both there and in nuclear-armed Pakistan. It is indisputable that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, indeed Saddam was an enemy of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. Iraq is now a terrorist breeding ground.

And the evidence that this is protecting us, rather than killing, maiming, bankrupting, and making us less safe is that there hasn't been another attack on (excluding the frequent mortar and rocket attacks on our embassy in Iraq) US soil yet? I got a magic rock to sell you. Ever since I started carrying it I haven't been attacked by tigers. Low cost, only $140,000--about the same cost of one minute of the Iraq war.

If there was anything suspicious about the three democrats that flew to Iraq during Bush's rush to invade a country that posed no threat, I'm sure the then the then Republican congress would have spent millions of dollars to investigate. Even if they are douche bags, it doesn't make the decision to invade wise.

So Saddam Hussein was a sick bastard, maybe we should have waited for the UN. While we were waiting we could have helped out in one of the other many countries slaughtering innocent people. By the way, we've now killed a few Iraqi children too: Iraq Body Count

You do realize that arguing against someone based on their name is lame, don't you?

It's certainly going a lot better than it was a year or two ago.

(Posted anonymously due to left-wing Slashdot bias and off-topicness of post.)

How can the Bush administration invade countries and kill innocent civilians (shock and awe) and not see it as terrorism?

Well, under international law, when you openly send the uniformed military of your country to attack another country, that is normally called an act of war (or possibly war crimes). It is not terrorism under anyone's definition (aside from a few radical wackos).

Terrorism is normally committed by sub-national elements. Al-Qaida is not a country. Neither is the PLO, the Red Army Faction, Hizbullah, Hamas, Tamil Tigers, Weather Underground or the IRA. There is some fuzziness between "rebels", "freedom fighters", "liberation movements" and "terrorists", but the uniformed military of a state are clearly not terrorists. Many Nazis were tried & convicted of war crimes, not terrorism.

What is the difference between a bunch of idiots crashing planes into buildings and another bunch of idiots sending bombers, fighters, tanks, and troops into a country to demolish their buildings and kill their people?

There is a very big difference between the uniformed military of a state carrying out government policy and a random bunch of individuals, even if both result in many deaths.

The sad reality is that companies like Blackwater have gone into Iraq and turn the cities into a shooting gallery. The troops, under the stress of IEDs, suicide bombers, etc, respond by also going on killing sprees.

War is Hell. That isn't new. Normally you go to war when the alternative is even worse. You can see "even worse" in Sudan, where the Sudanese government has killed over a million people in Darfur, and no major country has been willing to go to war to prevent it.

What is the difference and what gives the Bush administration the right to kill what has been estimated as between 80,000 to 90,000 innocent Iraqis? http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

There is a decent legal case to be made under international law that the UN Security Council's Iraq resolutions authorized the use of force to compel Saddam's regime to comply. Further, the US Constitution reserves the right to declare war to the Congress, and Congress authorized the President to use force in Iraq.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the Iraq conflict has been a mess after Saddam fell.

Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al., have now killed over 4000 Americans and over 80,000 Iraqis in the name of fighting terror after 3000 Americans were killed on 9/11.

Bush et. al. didn't kill 4000 Americans, they sent their all-volunteer military into harm's way. The opposition killed 4000 American soldiers. Compared to most other armed conflicts, American casualties have been very light.

On the other hand, there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the USA since then. Of course, correlation & causation are different things...

Does that make sense? I don't think so. All they have done is given terrorists more reasons to attack.

That's debatable. The terrorists already hated the USA prior to the conflict in Iraq & Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden's main complaint was that Americans were in Saudi Arabia and contaminating the land by their presence. Of course, the Americans were there at the explicit invitation of the government of Saudi Arabia, and when the Saudis asked them to leave, they left.

Why can the Bush administration do illegal and unconstitutional things but be so high and mighty about their need to monitor every American citizen to make sure they don't do illegal things?

How can the Bush administration invade countries and kill innocent civilians (shock and awe) and not see it as terrorism?

What is the difference between a bunch of idiots crashing planes into buildings and another bunch of idiots sending bombers, fighters, tanks, and troops into a country to demolish their buildings and kill their people?

The sad reality is that companies like Blackwater have gone into Iraq and turn the cities into a shooting gallery. The troops, under the stress of IEDs, suicide bombers, etc, respond by also going on killing sprees.

What is the difference and what gives the Bush administration the right to kill what has been estimated as between 80,000 to 90,000 innocent Iraqis? http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al., have now killed over 4000 Americans and over 80,000 Iraqis in the name of fighting terror after 3000 Americans were killed on 9/11.

Does that make sense? I don't think so. All they have done is given terrorists more reasons to attack.

Good point. I'm sure the Iraqis are jumping with joy regarding long term benefits. Especially when they are getting blown up almost every day. What is the count...lets seee...90,000 dead from the current war and 1,500,000 dead (1/2 million infants) from US/UK led sanctions.

For the numbers, I think I'll stick with these guys

For minimum possible deaths: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ 100,000, these are bodies that have been hand counted and reported on. Also they are deaths caused by direct violent action. As well it should be noted that since the vietnam war america does not count civilian corpses. This is to shield them from exactly this question.

I however am concerned about deaths caused by the invasion itself, aka 'how many more people would be alive had the invasion not happened?'. This is a much harder question to answer. Food shortages, missing parents, no electricty or running water. These are problems that plague iraq citizens for months during the beginning less no now infrastructure problems have seemed to stabilize. But precise numbers are impossible to determine. Feel free to shoot them down since i personally believe they are flawed whether right or not. So long as you realize the number will be much greater than 100,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_casualties_of_the_Iraq_War - Sept 2007 (Estimates 1.2Million)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War - Looong article about death estimates

'How many will it take till you know. That too many people have died?'. I hope you answer dylans question, how many people are you willing to sacrifice for the regime change? Think about it.

True, so let's take the data we have counting millions. What are the murder rates in other countries that play the same, and even more violent games and media, like Japan?

And then compare it to just one of our major cities...

It's freaking obvious to anyone who has paid any attention over the last 50 years... social darwinism. Launch the greediest of your society to the top (yay US!). That's just how the rules work in this country. Fuck your neighbor, and if anyone touches my useless shit I'll kill all you motherfuckers!

Sorry. But it's true. When I talk to people in some other countries, they see us as a bunch of gun toting madmen with wild staring eyes, having to always watch your back, etc... like you have to now in the streets of Baghdad (yay US!)

I mean hell, when you tell every single person living in the country that your freedoms will be taken from you in order to stop those that would injure America's "way of life" (see above), or that you must give 500 BILLION dollars from these asshats to go and kill a bunch of people instead of using it (up to date) to build over 38 THOUSAND new Elementary schools, or to have been able to give away over 81 MILLION College scholarships. etc... etc... etc...

After a while you wonder why there aren't just random killings almost daily at regular old shopping malls and schools here... oh wait...

Good luck with that deadly force thing.

The Iraqi and Afghanistan wars (I use the term loosely) have cost around $3,000,0000,0000,000.00 so far. How can you take up arms against a government which is willing to use those types of resources? I believe the ratio of dead Iraqi/American in this conflict is on the order of 100/1 (it is much less with documented numbers http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ http://www.google.com/search?q=dead+iraqi+count&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a, but with these numbers it is still over 22:1). Just how do you propose using deadly force against something like that?

I think the boxes line needs some revision. With the type of money out there to buy the votes, individual votes in the ballot box have little impact. I am 33, and I have never been in a jury box. I don't see the ammo box as a viable option. However, the soap box is getting more and more powerful. Here is a draft for others to pick apart:

There is one box to be used in defense of liberty: soap. But other boxes can be a lot of fun.

-FL

I agree with the sentiment expressed in your post, but factually I don't believe the Bush/Cheney war has surpassed Saddam's death toll yet. Most famously he massacred around 100,000 Kurds between 1986 and 1989. He did plenty of other awful things too. The Iraqi body count has the war approaching 90,000.

Of course, both of these numbers are absolutely abominable, and this war is not about those killings (the US was buddies with him back then), so it's not like one is the cost of stopping the other. Still, it's worth noting that Saddam was a bad, bad man.

Cheers

"... not the word of an infallible being either."

You are going down a slippery slope. Next you will be saying the U.S. president wasn't right when he said "When Saudis attack, invade Iraq", and "The answer to violence is more violence", and "We'll show them! They killed 3,000 Americans, we'll kill more", and "The way to make Muslims more gentle is to attack and kill them".

You're probably not counting the 15,000 or so suicides among U.S. troops in the past 2 years alone.

The report said the 99 confirmed suicides among active duty soldiers compares with 87 in 2005 and is the highest number since 102 were reported in 1991, the year of the Persian Gulf War, when there were more soldiers on active duty.

Investigations are still pending on two other deaths.

In a half million-person Army, last year's suicide toll translates to a rate of 17.3 per 100,000, the highest since the Army started counting in 1980, officials said. The rate has fluctuated over those years, with the low being 9.1 per 100,000 in 2001.

-CBS News

There was "limited evidence" to back the suspicion that repeated deployments are putting more people at risk for suicide, the report said. With the Army stretched thin by years of fighting the two wars, the Pentagon has had to extend normal tours of duty this year to 15 months from 12 and has sent some troops back to the wars several times.

Officials found no direct link between suicide and deployments or exposure to combat except in how they affect a soldier's marriage or other close relationships, Col. Elspeth Ritchie, psychiatry consultant to the Army surgeon general, said in a Pentagon press conference.

"Unfortunately, suicide is very often a compulsive act," she said, and the fact that soldiers are armed can make it harder to prevent.

"Very often a young soldier gets a 'Dear John' or 'Dear Jane' e-mail and then takes his weapon and shoots himself," she said.

I'm sure as hell you're not counting the million-odd dead Iraqis, but then you might be considering them all terrorists. Enemy combatants. Like the American citizens kept safe by their own extrajudicial executions. They were enemy combatants too.

The wealth of the US is being systematically removed, and the natural resources of the world are being systematically repurposed. "War on terror" is really a war on the boogeyman, used to play the suckers into selling their children into perpetual servitude.

That's treason and a crime against humanity that makes the Nazi crimes pale in comparison. Really. Pol Pot never had that kind of ambition.

The authoritative study of civilian casualties was done by a group from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.

The "iraq body count" guys are just counting dead listed in press releases.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.

With surveyed reports, if you asked the ~85 people on my street if they knew anyone who died in the last 6 months, you'd get 85 positive results. ONE of our neighbors passed away about 4 months ago, and everyone knows it. With a survey, you would extrapolate that to 85 deaths, when in fact morgue and hospital/emergency reports would confirm one death.

And regardless of the source of casualties, all are reporting a drastic drop in violence within Iraq. Fundamentally, the surge worked, 45% of Iraq is under direct Iraqi control, terror attacks and suicide bombing (by far the largest source of all deaths) are down dramatically.

You have to remember that there are anywhere from 0.5 to 1.3 million dead Iraqi civilians.

Huh, Iraq Body Count only has ~85k deaths by violence, mostly from terrorist* killings. You have to remember, in country of 27.5 million people, I'd expect 340k or so deaths a year from natural causes. The highest estimate I've seen is ~500k, and that's a mortality study, so most likely includes all causes of death.

Do you have a source for your figure? A time period would also be good for perspective.

*Fighting US Military in Iraq = Insurgent(mostly). Killing Iraqi civilians in deliberate attacks like bombing a Mosque = terrorist.

That number range is bogus; at most it is around 80,000 (an order or magnitude lower) and most of those have been at the hands of the insurgents (approximately 2/3rds). This number also corresponds with that from the LA Times, and Iraq's government. The main killer of Iraqi civilians are suicide bombs, kidnappings and executions, political assassinations.

Do you mean that US military does not drop bombs on strategic targets in urban areas? How have we managed to kill 84 thousand civilians in Iraq if we "take pains to avoid that stuff"?

We take pains to avoid that sort of stuff. The terrorists/insurgents* unfortunately seem to try to take pains to ensure civilian deaths - part of the rules of warfare (as practiced by western civilizations) are NOT to put military assets around civilian ones.

Besides, I can tell that Iraqbodycount is including ALL violent deaths - not just ones by US/coalition forces.

Very first page:
Baghdad: 4 bodies.
Falluja: 2 bodies.
Mosul: roadside bomb kills policeman; 2 bodies -a university student and her mother.
Samarra: car bomb kills 3 policemen.
Hilla: 2 worshippers shot dead outisde mosque.
Tuz Khurmato: body found.
Wajihia: body found.

Are you trying to argue that we're setting car bombs ourselves, having snipers shoot random people, or leaving bodies** out to be found by random people?

Per this page, it's 600 Iraqi civilians in 5 months. At that rate, it's 1440 per year, or more than 58 years to come up to the death toll you cited as though it was all caused by the USA. Given that, it looks like the terrorists are killing Iraqies better than four times as much as the US - even with far fewer resources.

I'm not saying that this is good - but it does show the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and collateral damage. Can collateral deaths be avoided? In my opinion, while more can be done, it would be in substantial cost in manpower, time, effort, and probably casualties - the longer the conflict runs, the more casualties there likely are going to be.

*No, they are NOT necessarily the same.
**Sometimes this happens - we're not able to get to the scene(bomb/artillery fire), the body is from somebody shot from a convoy under attack that wasn't about to stop, etc...

Do you mean that US military does not drop bombs on strategic targets in urban areas? How have we managed to kill 84 thousand civilians in Iraq if we "take pains to avoid that stuff"?

We take pains to avoid that sort of stuff. The terrorists/insurgents* unfortunately seem to try to take pains to ensure civilian deaths - part of the rules of warfare (as practiced by western civilizations) are NOT to put military assets around civilian ones.

Besides, I can tell that Iraqbodycount is including ALL violent deaths - not just ones by US/coalition forces.

Very first page:
Baghdad: 4 bodies.
Falluja: 2 bodies.
Mosul: roadside bomb kills policeman; 2 bodies -a university student and her mother.
Samarra: car bomb kills 3 policemen.
Hilla: 2 worshippers shot dead outisde mosque.
Tuz Khurmato: body found.
Wajihia: body found.

Are you trying to argue that we're setting car bombs ourselves, having snipers shoot random people, or leaving bodies** out to be found by random people?

Per this page, it's 600 Iraqi civilians in 5 months. At that rate, it's 1440 per year, or more than 58 years to come up to the death toll you cited as though it was all caused by the USA. Given that, it looks like the terrorists are killing Iraqies better than four times as much as the US - even with far fewer resources.

I'm not saying that this is good - but it does show the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and collateral damage. Can collateral deaths be avoided? In my opinion, while more can be done, it would be in substantial cost in manpower, time, effort, and probably casualties - the longer the conflict runs, the more casualties there likely are going to be.

*No, they are NOT necessarily the same.
**Sometimes this happens - we're not able to get to the scene(bomb/artillery fire), the body is from somebody shot from a convoy under attack that wasn't about to stop, etc...

Do you mean that US military does not drop bombs on strategic targets in urban areas? How have we managed to kill 84 thousand civilians in Iraq if we "take pains to avoid that stuff"? Why have we been bombing foreign embassies and weddings? Do we or do we not impose economic sanctions on countries that are not an imminent threat in full knowledge that hundreds of thousands of children will starve to death or die in need of the most basic medical care?

Granted, if we want soldiers to act more like police officers we must send many times more troops, institute draft and suffer far greater casualties from our side. Death of people forced into military can also be considered civilians deaths, so perhaps it's better them than us. But lets not sugarcoat the very ugly reality or let real police officers act like soldiers in foreign land.

PEACEFUL???

What the hell are you smoking?

There are about million dead, e.g. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html.
US of fucking A is responsible *directly* for 70'000 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/, and indirectly for most of the rest.

The are several million refugees (some to neighboring countries) http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html.

Jesus Christ and Holy Maria - what the hell would you consider non-peaceful!?

BTW, there is no invitation. Even the puppet government has asked USA to leave. Google yourself.

>>> Discredited by who?

By the Iraq Body Count staff researchers. It seems that the Lancet study implies some things that available data does not support, such as that 90% of Iraqis wounded by violence did not seek treatment at hospitals or were not recorded.

I went looking into this with the expectation that I'd provide a quote from IBC saying how their numbers are a guaranteed underestimate - and they are - but I was very surprised to find their analysis of the Lancet study, and surprised to find that they raised some very good points. The Lancet study was done on only 47 clusters of homes, meaning that an unusual level of violence in only a handful of places could substantially skew their results. Based on that, and on some of the concerns IBC raises, it seems likely that the Lancet estimate may not be the most reliable.

That's not to say the numbers aren't large - IBC estimates 80,000 civilian deaths from violence, which is known to be an underestimate of civilian deaths by violence, which doesn't take into account numbers of violent deaths classified as insurgent (also tens of thousands, based on military reports), and which doesn't take into account deaths due to the breakdown of infrastructure (such as lack of electricity or clean water) - and that's not to say those large numbers aren't tragic, infuriating, undeserved, unnecessary, and deeply sad. It's just that there appear to be legitimate concerns with the Lancet study, and scientific honesty compels me to point that out, regardless of my own personal beliefs on the issue it addresses.

"*shrug*, civilians die during war. It sucks, but that's the reality. How would you suggest fighting insurgents that blend into the population without having civilian injuries or deaths?"

The sheer difference in magnitude suggests that it's much more than that. However, even aside from your point, was any civilian death worth the cause? In my estimation, absolutely not. We've spent .5 Trillion dollars to piss off the world, create more terrorists and strain our troops that should be looking for OB. Remember, Saddam wasn't an enemy, even when he gassed the Kurds (in fact we helped quell international outrage), until he broke the rules and invaded Kuwait.

"Do I have legitimate gripe that the Arab media is focusing too much on the civilian deaths and not enough on the deaths of our troops?"

If you think that the overwhelming civilian death toll is worth the deaths of our invading troops, then I suppose so. I also suppose that's where you and many other's differ.

"Because that's what Americans care about."

Is being jingoistic and uncaring about other human beings that happen to have born on a different spot on this planet a good thing? I'm not so sure...

"Because I'll go out on a limb and say that the population is going to suffer a lot more when we leave, if for no other reason then the various sects will fall upon themselves without us being around to stop them."

I agree with you. Leaving the extraordinary mess we've made now would make us irresponsible in the extreme. We would also lose our last drop of respect in the world, if we had a drop to lose.

"In fact, they probably suffer more, because whatever you can say about American actions in Iraq, we don't have death squads roaming neighborhoods and engaging in random killings."

I'm not sure if you are referring to Iraq or what, but the violence will surely calm down once the areas are "cleared" of their religious rival in their new lawless society we've given them.

"Why allowing it to split along ethic and/or religious lines is off the table is beyond me. Should we have invaded Yugoslavia and forced that country to remain united?"

Your ignorance of what happened in Yugoslavia withstanding, when neighbors (and I mean neighbors, right next door, etc...) have people vying for power in a lawless world (and religion in this area was a perfect catalyst), it's a bad thing. Period.

"If you have a better topic of discussion for American media then "Should we pull our boys out?" I'm all ears."

There is nothing we can do. We literally have to sink our money into this until we utterly fail, or we somehow pull out of it with at least a semblance of normalcy. But leaving is not an option. That, I firmly realize.

Why do you think that? I read iraqbodycount's methods and I now believe it's too conservative an estimate. It doesn't even purport to count all the dead Iraqis - just the documented violent deaths of noncombatants. That's a joke. Would you count casualties from the US civil war that way? All the guys of sect X who stand up to prevent sect Y from kicking them out of their own homes - they don't even count. The millions of refugees driven from their homes with nothing - how many have died prematurely? And, yes, the ones that we killed ourselves... even if you assume they were all going to launch terrorist attacks on America anyways (which is absurd), they should certainly be included in something that purports to be an "iraq body count."

We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection about what the "unseen" number of deaths might have been.

Mass Graves aren't being filled

You forgot 80,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. This is unquestionably larger and more disturbing than the previous numbers.